Info tech research group enterprise lan vendor landscape

1Info-Tech Research Group

Vendor Landscape: Enterprise LAN

Be the talk of the campus by choosing the right LAN vendor.


Today, few basic features differentiate LAN solutions, but examine advanced

features, price, and viability to make the right decision.

Introduction

Organizations seeking to select a solution for

enterprise LAN (also known as campus LAN).

Their enterprise LAN use cases may include:

• Initial deployment of an enterprise network.

• Upgrading an existing network with new

components.

This Research Is Designed For: This Research Will Help You:

Understand what’s new in the enterprise LAN

market.

Evaluate enterprise LAN vendors and products for

your enterprise needs.

Determine which products are most appropriate for

particular use cases and scenarios.


Executive Summary

Info-Tech evaluated eight competitors in the enterprise LAN market,

including the following notable performers:

Champions:

• Avaya: Balancing a strong product with a stable vendor, Avaya

should be a contender on most organizations’ shortlists.

• Cisco: Cisco remains the leader in the enterprise networking

market in both mind share and market share, and continues to

carry a broad, comprehensive, full-featured product lineup.

• Enterasys: Enterasys’ enterprise LAN products contain many

advanced features, including an admin interface that ties the whole

network together.

• HP Networking: HP is a strong vendor with a complete enterprise

LAN portfolio that is gaining mind share and market share in a very

competitive market.

Value Award:

• Alcatel-Lucent: Alcatel-Lucent secured the award by having

slightly lower list pricing than competitors.

Trend Setter Award:

• Extreme Networks: Extreme Networks pushes the boundaries of

raw performance. Advancing other unique features and entering

key partnerships keeps Extreme Networks viable in a very

competitive market.

1. The Network of the Future is Wireless:

The LAN solutions reviewed here are wired,

but the network edge will become almost

entirely wireless soon. Consider vendors

that offer wired hardware that is compatible

with wireless hardware.

2. Management is Key:

Often, ease of management is more of a

differentiating feature than hardware specs.

Look for single pane of glass management

across all parts of the network, and demo

interfaces to see which one feels right.

3. Price Still Matters:

The commoditization of the market is

reflected in the very close list pricing from

vendors that provided pricing. However, list

pricing does not even remotely resemble

street pricing, and vendors will vie for

business in competitive situations. Expect a

minimum of 40% discounts off list pricing,

and in some cases vendors will discount in

excess of 50%.

Info-Tech Insight


Market Overview

• The evolution of networking technology has been

extensive and rapid – reliability has increased

exponentially, features and standards development have

been staggering, and speeds have increased 1000

times (10Mbit to 10Gbit) in the last 20 years.

• While features and speeds have increased

exponentially, prices have remained relatively stable. A

10Mbit port on a shared hub in 1992 was $192, while a

2012 64 port Mellanox switch comes in at $188 per

10Gbit port. Based on speed alone that is a 100,000%

price to performance improvement.

• The LAN hardware market is now near-commodity, with

vendors attempting to differentiate through feature

additions, convergence, and ease of management.

• With the commoditization and standardization of core

LAN infrastructure, vendors strive to differentiate by:

• Unifying and converging across networks – from

data center to wireless edge.

• Providing unified visibility, administration,

monitoring, and management through a single

pane of glass network management system.

• Driving performance, reliability, and resiliency

through proprietary protocols and techniques.

• Mobility and cloud computing are changing the demands

of enterprise LAN users. The next generation of the

enterprise LAN access network will be largely wireless,

and vendors are adapting and differentiating enterprise

LAN offerings with WLAN offerings.

• Network management has been added to this Vendor

Landscape, and WLAN will be amalgamated with the

next version of this Vendor Landscape.

How it got here Where it’s going

As the market evolves, capabilities that were once new and innovative become default and new

functionality becomes differentiating. Quality of service and traffic visibility have become Table Stakes

capabilities and should no longer be used to differentiate solutions. Instead focus on network management

and end-to-end network unification to get the best fit for your requirements.


Enterprise LAN vendor selection / knock-out criteria: market share, mind share, and comprehensiveness

• Alcatel-Lucent. A European contender coming to enterprise LAN from a telephony background.

• Avaya. After acquiring Nortel’s networking technology, Avaya is back in the enterprise LAN market.

• Brocade. Brocade wields a recently boosted LAN portfolio after its acquisition of Foundry.

• Cisco. The networking heavyweight, Cisco has a comprehensive line of enterprise LAN products.

• Enterasys. Enterasys has collaborated with Siemens to take on the campus LAN market.

• Extreme Networks. Purple and proud, Extreme Networks offers high performance hardware.

• HP Networking. One of the leaders in networking, HP’s FlexCampus portfolio puts it in the enterprise LAN competition.

• Juniper. Juniper is a quickly rising contender in the enterprise networking market.

Included in this Vendor Landscape:

• In a largely commoditized market, vendors need more than functioning LAN hardware. Integration with other network

components, and unified management across all aspects of the network, were some of the criteria that warranted

inclusion in this vendor landscape.

• For this Vendor Landscape, Info-Tech focused on those vendors that offer a broad portfolio of enterprise LAN products

and that have a strong market presence and/or reputational presence among mid-sized enterprises.


Criteria Weighting:The Table Stakes

Enterprise LAN criteria & weighting factors

15%

10%

35%

40%

50%

50%

Vendor is committed to the space and has a

future product and portfolio roadmap.Strategy

Vendor offers global coverage and is able to sell

and provide post-sales support. Reach

Vendor is profitable, knowledgeable, and will be

around for the long-term.Viability

Vendor channel strategy is appropriate and the

channels themselves are strong. Channel

The three year TCO of the solution is

economical.Affordability

The delivery method of the solution aligns with

what is expected within the space.Architecture

The solution’s dashboard and reporting tools are

intuitive and easy to use.Usability

The solution provides basic

and advanced feature/functionality.Features

35%

20%15%

30%

Features

Usability

Architecture

Affordability

Product

Vendor

Viability Strategy

Channel Reach

Product Evaluation Criteria

Vendor Evaluation Criteria


The Info-Tech Enterprise LAN Vendor Landscape

Champions receive high scores for most evaluation

criteria and offer excellent value. They have a strong

market presence and are usually the trend setters

for the industry.

Market Pillars are established players with very

strong vendor credentials, but with more average

product scores.

Innovators have demonstrated innovative product

strengths that act as their competitive advantage in

appealing to niche segments of the market.

Emerging players are newer vendors that are

starting to gain a foothold in the marketplace. They

balance product and vendor attributes, though score

lower relative to market Champions.

For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape is created, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.

The Zones of the Landscape

Alcatel-Lucent

Avaya

Brocade

CiscoEnterasys

Extreme Networks

HP

Juniper


=Exemplary =Good =Adequate =Inadequate =Poor

Balance individual strengths to find the best fit for your enterprise

Product Vendor

Features Usability Viability Strategy Channel

Extreme

Networks

Brocade

Avaya

Cisco

Enterasys

Alcatel-Lucent

ReachOverall Overall

HP

Juniper

Legend

Afford. Arch.

Pricing was not available for Brocade, Cisco, HP, or Juniper.

For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Harvey Balls are calculated, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.


What is a Value Score?

The Info-Tech Enterprise LAN Value Index

4050

6070

8090

3020

10

The Value Score indexes each vendor’s

product offering and business strength

relative to its price point. It does

not indicate vendor ranking.

Vendors that score high offer greater value for

your money (e.g. features, usability, stability,

etc.) than the average vendor, while the

inverse is true for those that score lower.

Price-conscious enterprises may wish to give

the Value Score more consideration than

those who are more focused on specific

vendor/product attributes.

*Note that list pricing provided by vendors

was very close (~10% difference between

the highest and lowest), but even the

vendor with the highest value score noted

that street price is less than 50% of list

price. As a result, affordability has a lower

weighting in this Vendor Landscape.

Champion

100

141423

For an explanation of how the Info-Tech Value Index is calculated, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.

* Pricing was not available for Brocade, Cisco, HP, or Juniper.

For an explanation of how Price is determined, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.

On a relative basis, Alcatel-Lucent

maintained the highest Info-Tech Value

ScoreTM of the vendor group. Vendors

were indexed against Alcatel-Lucent’s

performance to provide a relative view of

its product offerings.

Average Score: 18


Table Stakes represent the minimum standard; without these, a product doesn’t even get reviewed

If Table Stakes are all you need from your enterprise LAN solution, the only true differentiator for the

organization is price. Otherwise, extend your search to find the right feature-set at the best price.

The products assessed in this Vendor

LandscapeTM meet, at the very least, the

requirements outlined as Table Stakes.

Many of the vendors go above and beyond the

outlined Table Stakes, some even do so in

multiple categories. This section aims to

highlight the products’ capabilities in excess

of the criteria listed here.

The Table Stakes What Does This Mean?

Power over Ethernet plus (PoE+) on at least

some hardware.

Power over

Ethernet plus

VRRP, HSRP, or other redundancy protocols.Redundancy

and failover

Direct traffic using the IPv6 protocol.IPv6 hardware

support

Integration with LDAP / Active Directory. Directory

integration

Port-based 802.1x authentication.Simple

authentication

Standards-based QoS for real-time services,

such as voice and video.

Quality of

service

What it is:Feature


Advanced Features are the capabilities that allow for granular market differentiation

Info-Tech scored each vendor’s features

offering as a summation of its individual scores

across the listed advanced features. Vendors

were given one point for each feature the

product inherently provided. Some categories

were scored on a more granular scale, with

vendors receiving half points.

Visibility into flows using technology such as

NetFlow and sFlow.Flow visibility

Top of rack switches with at least 10Gbps

aggregation and 40 Gbps uplinks.

High capacity

aggregation

Organizational focus on efficiency and advanced

power-saving features.

Energy

efficiency

Automatically apply policy when device

connects, based on identity and device type.

Automated

provisioning

Native network access control (NAC) or

integration with third-party NAC.NAC integration

Stacking of at least eight units.Stacking

Not a necessarily a feature, but a limited lifetime

warranty on edge switches can be essential.

Support /

warranty

Virtual machine switching and VEPA compliance.Virtual machine

switching

What we looked for:Feature

Advanced FeaturesScoring Methodology

For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.


=Feature Absent=Feature partially present/pending=Feature fully present

Each vendor offers a different feature set; concentrate on what your organization needs

Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

IntegrationWarrantyStacking

Flow

Visibility

Virtual

Switching

Legend

Evaluated Features

Extreme

Networks

Brocade

Avaya

Cisco

Enterasys

Alcatel-Lucent

HP

Juniper

For an explanation of how Advanced Features are determined, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:

Endpoint Security & Data

Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Cisco comes out on top in terms of advanced features

Champion• Cisco is the competitor to beat in the enterprise LAN market,

with the largest market share and mind share for LAN hardware

and software.

Overview

• The most complete set of advanced features that we evaluated.

• Advanced troubleshooting options, such as a traffic simulator

and hop by hop troubleshooting.

• Cisco has the resources for strong channels and worldwide

support.

Strengths

• Cisco has a reputation for being expensive, and for most

organizations that reputation will prove to be justified, although

the gap is narrowing.

• Some proprietary solutions can lead to vendor lock-in, but Cisco

also supports open standards. Each organization must choose

how deeply to entrench themselves in Cisco’s ecosystem.

Challenges

Catalyst Switches

Cisco Network Control System

73,408

San Jose, CA

cisco.com

1984

NASDAQ: CSCO

The vendor declined to provide pricing, and

publicly available pricing could not be found.

$1 $1M+

http://www.cisco.com/


Cisco

Features

Info-Tech Recommends:

Cisco offers the most full-featured LAN evaluated, and it is a stable vendor that continues to innovate. Just be prepared to

pay for Cisco’s quality.

NAValue Index

Vendor Landscape

“Cisco offers a broad suite of products that allow for consistency across the

enterprise, and integrate well with their own server solution, as well as other vendors.

Tom, Technical Director, Hosting Service

What clients don’t like about the product:

“Price.

Israel, Advisor, Information Industry

What we’re hearing

Product Vendor

Feat. Use. Afford. Via. Strat. Chan.ReachArch. OverallOverall

“Price.

Vladimir, Officer, Finance

Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow

VisibilityStacking Warranty

Virtual

Switching


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Enterasys stands out with unified management

Champion• Enterasys recently entered into a joint venture with Siemens

Enterprise Communications, providing opportunities for

integration with voice services as the merger solidifies.

Overview

• A full-featured admin interface, OneFabric Control Center, that

unifies management across the network, including wired and

wireless components.

• Integrated NAC, also managed through OneFabric Control

Center.

Strengths

• Hardware is lagging behind in some areas; for example, it lacks

40Gbps uplinks.

• Enterasys, while a healthy private company involved in a fruitful

joint venture with Siemens, struggles to shed the reputation that

it caters almost exclusively to large enterprises, and regain mind

share in the mid-market.

Challenges

Enterprise LAN Switching

Products and OneFabric

Control Center

1,000+

Andover, MA

enterasys.com

1983 (as Cabletron)

Privately held

3 year TCO for this solution falls into pricing

tier 9, between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

$1 $1M+

Pricing provided by vendor.

http://www.enterasys.com/


Enterasys

Features


Enterasys offers feature-rich hardware and an impressive admin interface. Its solutions should be a consideration for any

business shopping for enterprise LAN.

232nd out of 8

Value Index

Vendor Landscape

Enterasys was one of the top rated enterprise LAN vendors in a small survey of Info-

Tech clients, citing good feedback and ease of use as reasons for choosing

Enterasys.


Product Vendor


Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow


Virtual

Switching


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

HP has a full range of innovative enterprise LAN products

Champion• Through innovation and acquisitions, HP has become one of the

most significant networking vendors. Its FlexCampus portfolio is

targeted at enterprise LAN customers.

Overview

• HP is at the forefront of efforts to optimize virtualization in the

network (along with Cisco), giving its LAN products an edge in

virtualized IT environments.

• With an enormous client base and a worldwide presence, HP is

a stable vendor likely to support its products for years to come.

• HP was at the forefront of vendors offering lifetime warranties

on networking products.

Strengths

• HP has made some progress digesting 3Com and rationalizing

its product portfolio, but the product lineup retains a sometimes

confusing combination of former 3Com and HP ProCurve

switches.

Challenges

FlexCampus Networking

Solutions

324,600

Palo Alto, CA

hp.com

1939

NYSE: HPQ

$1 $1M+



http://h17007.www1.hp.com/us/en/


HP

Features


HP’s enterprise LAN portfolio is strong, and products have a lifetime warranty to back them up. Most businesses should

have HP on their shortlist.

NAValue Index

Vendor Landscape

“We like having a single cohesive product line in the E-series, and a lifetime

warranty.

Scott, IT, Educational Services

“Consumer-based mentality with limited product life cycles for upgrades and

updates. Ordering an HP product and receiving a device that says HP on the front

and 3Com on the back can be disconcerting.

John, Information Systems Manager, Legal Services


Product Vendor


Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow


Virtual

Switching


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Avaya has strong virtualization features

Champion• Avaya acquired Nortel’s enterprise solutions technology and

talent in 2009, boosting its networking line.

Overview

• Strong energy saving features for cost savings and green

initiatives.

• A focus on virtualization results in products that can support a

highly virtualized business.

• Excellent integration with Avaya’s telephony and

communications products.

Strengths

• While Avaya has high-port density 10Gbps, high-capacity

stackable switches, it does not yet support 40Gbps uplinks on

enterprise LAN products.

• A single management interface for wired and wireless does

exist, but it lacks the level of integration of other leading

solutions. Tighter integration and simplified single pane of glass

administration are expected in 2012.

Challenges

5000 Series Switches

19,000

Basking Ridge, NJ

avaya.com

2000

Privately held


tier 9, between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

$1 $1M+


http://www.avaya.com/usa/


Avaya

Features


Avaya’s virtualization features and energy efficiency make for solid hardware, and it is a stable vendor. However, the

current lack of a unified management interface provides reason for caution.

143rd out of 8

Value Index

Vendor Landscape

“Reliable equipment, operates well in adverse conditions. Local specialists have

high skills, but they are under-resourced. Next day replacement of parts or hardware

does not occur because spares are held for higher value clients.

David, IT Director, Entertainment Industry


Product Vendor


Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow


Virtual

Switching


Product:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Extreme Networks is all about networking

Innovator• Extreme Networks has been in the networking business since

1996, and continues to do well in the enterprise LAN market.

Overview

• Extreme Networks’ purple hardware is powerful in terms of raw

numbers.

• Automatic provisioning is a focus of Extreme Networks.

• A partnership with McAfee allows for powerful integrated NAC

and other security options.

Strengths

• Pure-play networking vendors like Extreme Networks are

susceptible to market volatility.

Challenges

Summit Switches

Ridgeline Network Mgmt

800

Santa Clara, CA

extremenetworks.com

1996

NASDAQ: EXTR


tier 9, between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

$1 $1M+


http://www.extremenetworks.com/


Extreme Networks

Features


Extreme Networks is ideal for demanding networks, but it also has easy deployment and provisioning. Businesses with

busy networks should resort to Extreme Networks measures.

143rd out of 8

Value Index

Vendor Landscape

Info-Tech was unable to solicit third-party insights for this solution.


Product Vendor


Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow


Virtual

Switching


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Juniper stands out with a unified network operating system

Emerging Player• Juniper has been growing in the enterprise networking market

for several years. Its Simply Connected Campus portfolio offers

a full range of enterprise LAN products.

Overview

• Juniper’s networking client, Junos Pulse, unlocks advanced

features, such as integrated security.

• Junos has a single network operating system that underlies and

unifies all of its network equipment, simplifying deployment and

maintenance.

Strengths

• Coming from a background of service provider networking and

security, Juniper’s main focus is not small-medium enterprise

network hardware.

Challenges

EX Series Switches

Junos Pulse

9,000

Sunnyvale, CA

juniper.net

1996

NYSE: JNPR

$1 $1M+



http://www.juniper.net/us/en/


Juniper

Features


Although not as strong as some larger competitors, Juniper balances solid enterprise LAN products with a vendor that is

increasing its market share. Stay up to date with Juniper’s growth.

NAValue Index

Vendor Landscape

Clients were impressed with Juniper’s ease of use, but less enthusiastic about its

technical support and availability of channel partners.


Product Vendor


Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow


Virtual

Switching


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Brocade doesn’t stand out from the crowd, and may be a risky choice

Emerging Player• Brocade has been in business since 1995, and boosted its

enterprise LAN offerings with its acquisition of Foundry

Networks in 2008.

Overview

• Brocade’s management interface allows admins to manage

both wired and wireless Brocade infrastructure in one pane of

glass.

• Energy efficiency is a priority for Brocade.

Strengths

• It is widely rumored that Brocade is actively up for sale, making

the long-term viability of the company uncertain.

• High-capacity aggregation on top of rack switches is lagging

behind competitors.

Challenges

ICX 6610 Series Switch

4,000

San Jose, CA

brocade.com

1995

NASDAQ: BRCD

$1 $1M+



http://www.brocade.com/index.page


Brocade

Features


Brocade’s hardware stands up to competitors in basic features, but is falling behind on innovation, and disruptions in the

business could affect customers.

NAValue Index

Vendor Landscape



Product Vendor


Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow


Virtual

Switching


Products:

Employees:

Headquarters:

Website:

Founded:

Presence:


Protection

1,200+

Abingdon, UK

Sophos.com

1985

Privately Held

Alcatel-Lucent has a competitive product, but comes with some limitations

Emerging Player• Better known for its telephony products, Alcatel-Lucent has a

small, but significant presence in the enterprise LAN market as

well.

Overview

• Energy efficiency is a priority for Alcatel-Lucent. It claims that its

dynamic power over Ethernet hardware is the most efficient in

its class.

• The OmniSwitch product line is economical, and the recipient of

our value award as a result.

Strengths

• Alcatel-Lucent’s client base and operations are primarily in

Europe. Although expanding, its presence in North America is

still limited.

• Networking is not Alcatel-Lucent’s primary focus, and it is not

targeted at the mid-market.

Challenges

OmniSwitch Switches

OmniVista Network Mgmt

79, 796

Paris, France

alcatel-lucent.com

1986

EPA: ALU

FY10 Revenue: $21.4B


tier 9, between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

$1 $1M+


http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/




Alcatel-Lucent

Auto

Provision

Energy

Efficiency

High

Capacity

NAC

Integration

Flow

Visibility

Features


Alcatel-Lucent’s LAN hardware and management is functional, but with limited geographical reach and limited viability in

the LAN market, many businesses will have better options.

Stacking WarrantyVirtual

Switching

1001st out of 8

Value Index

Vendor Landscape



Product Vendor



The Info-Tech Enterprise LAN Vendor Shortlist Tool is designed to generate a

customized shortlist of vendors based on your key priorities.

Identify leading candidates with the Enterprise LAN Vendor Shortlist Tool

• Overall Vendor vs. Product Weightings.

• Individual product criteria weightings:

Features

Usability

Affordability

Architecture

• Individual vendor criteria weightings:

Viability

Strategy

Reach

Channel

This tool offers the ability to modify:

http://www.infotech.com/research/it-enterprise-lan-vendor-shortlist-tool


In a largely commoditized market, a vendor can differentiate itself through

its network management.

Consider ease of management when choosing a LAN vendor

Why Scenarios?

In reviewing the products included

in each Vendor LandscapeTM ,

certain use-cases come to the

forefront. Whether those use-cases

are defined by applicability in

certain locations, relevance for

certain industries, or as strengths in

delivering a specific capability, Info-

Tech recognizes those use-cases

as Scenarios, and calls attention to

them where they exist.

32

Network Management1

For an explanation of how Scenarios are determined, please see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation in the Appendix.

Exemplary Performers

Viable Performers

Adequate Performers


Standalone NAC is available, but save in costs and integration hassles by

choosing a LAN vendor with access control built in.

If network security is a priority, choose a vendor with integrated NAC

Why Scenarios?












3

1

NAC Integration2



Viable Performers

Logo


A vendor with a product portfolio that spans data center to wireless edge is

compelling if you are looking for consistency and simplicity.

If a unified data center, enterprise, and wireless LAN are priorities, choose a vendor that brings the network together

Why Scenarios?













Viable Performers

Adequate Performers

21

Unified Network3



Appendix

1. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Overview

2. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Product Selection & Information Gathering

3. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring

4. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation

5. Vendor Landscape Methodology: Fact Check & Publication

6. Product Pricing Scenario


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Overview

Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscapes are research materials that review a particular IT market space, evaluating the strengths and abilities of both

the products available in that space, as well as the vendors of those products. These materials are created by a team of dedicated analysts

operating under the direction of a senior subject matter expert over a period of six weeks.

Evaluations weigh selected vendors and their products (collectively “solutions”) on the following eight criteria to determine overall standing:

• Features: The presence of advanced and market-differentiating capabilities.

• Usability: The intuitiveness, power, and integrated nature of administrative consoles and client software components.

• Affordability: The three-year total cost of ownership of the solution.

• Architecture: The degree of integration with the vendor’s other tools, flexibility of deployment, and breadth of platform applicability.

• Viability: The stability of the company as measured by its history in the market, the size of its client base, and its financial performance.

• Strategy: The commitment to both the market-space, as well as to the various sized clients (small, mid-sized, and enterprise clients).

• Reach: The ability of the vendor to support its products on a global scale.

• Channel: The measure of the size of the vendor’s channel partner program, as well as any channel strengthening strategies.

Evaluated solutions are plotted on a standard two by two matrix:

• Champions: Both the product and the vendor receive scores that are above the average score for the evaluated group.

• Innovators: The product receives a score that is above the average score for the evaluated group, but the vendor receives a score that is

below the average score for the evaluated group.

• Market Pillars: The product receives a score that is below the average score for the evaluated group, but the vendor receives a score that

is above the average score for the evaluated group.

• Emerging Players: Both the product and the vendor receive scores that are below the average score for the evaluated group.

Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscapes are researched and produced according to a strictly adhered to process that includes the following steps:

• Vendor/product selection

• Information gathering

• Vendor/product scoring

• Information presentation

• Fact checking

• Publication

This document outlines how each of these steps is conducted.


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Vendor/Product Selection & Information Gathering

Info-Tech works closely with its client base to solicit guidance in terms of understanding the vendors with whom clients wish to work and the

products that they wish evaluated; this demand pool forms the basis of the vendor selection process for Vendor Landscapes. Balancing this

demand, Info-Tech also relies upon the deep subject matter expertise and market awareness of its Senior and Lead Research Analysts to

ensure that appropriate solutions are included in the evaluation. As an aspect of that expertise and awareness, Info-Tech’s analysts may, at

their discretion, determine the specific capabilities that are required of the products under evaluation, and include in the Vendor Landscape

only those solutions that meet all specified requirements.

Information on vendors and products is gathered in a number of ways via a number of channels.

Initially, a request package is submitted to vendors to solicit information on a broad range of topics. The request package includes:

• A detailed survey.

• A pricing scenario (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Price Evaluation and Pricing Scenario, below).

• A request for reference clients.

• A request for a briefing and, where applicable, guided product demonstration.

These request packages are distributed approximately twelve weeks prior to the initiation of the actual research project to allow vendors ample

time to consolidate the required information and schedule appropriate resources.

During the course of the research project, briefings and demonstrations are scheduled (generally for one hour each session, though more time

is scheduled as required) to allow the analyst team to discuss the information provided in the survey, validate vendor claims, and gain direct

exposure to the evaluated products. Additionally, an end-user survey is circulated to Info-Tech’s client base and vendor-supplied reference

accounts are interviewed to solicit their feedback on their experiences with the evaluated solutions and with the vendors of those solutions.

These materials are supplemented by a thorough review of all product briefs, technical manuals, and publicly available marketing materials

about the product, as well as about the vendor itself.

Refusal by a vendor to supply completed surveys or submit to participation in briefings and demonstrations does not eliminate a vendor from

inclusion in the evaluation. Where analyst and client input has determined that a vendor belongs in a particular evaluation, it will be evaluated

as best as possible based on publicly available materials only. As these materials are not as comprehensive as a survey, briefing, and

demonstration, the possibility exists that the evaluation may not be as thorough or accurate. Since Info-Tech includes vendors regardless of

vendor participation, it is always in the vendor’s best interest to participate fully.

All information is recorded and catalogued, as required, to facilitate scoring and for future reference.


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Scoring

Once all information has been gathered and evaluated for all vendors and products, the analyst team moves to scoring. All scoring is

performed at the same time so as to ensure as much consistency as possible. Each criterion is scored on a ten point scale, though the manner

of scoring for criteria differs slightly:

• Features is scored via Cumulative Scoring

• Affordability is scored via Scalar Scoring

• All other criteria are scored via Base5 Scoring

In Cumulative Scoring, a single point is assigned to each evaluated feature that is regarded as being fully present, a half point to each feature

that is partially present or pending in an upcoming release, and zero points to features that are deemed to be absent. The assigned points are

summed and normalized to a value out of ten. For example, if a particular Vendor Landscape evaluates eight specific features in the Feature

Criteria, the summed score out of eight for each evaluated product would be multiplied by 1.25 to yield a value out of ten.

In Scalar Scoring, a score of ten is assigned to the lowest cost solution, and a score of one is assigned to the highest cost solution. All other

solutions are assigned a mathematically determined score based on their proximity to / distance from these two endpoints. For example, in an

evaluation of three solutions, where the middle cost solution is closer to the low end of the pricing scale it will receive a higher score, and

where it is closer to the high end of the pricing scale it will receive a lower score; depending on proximity to the high or low price it is entirely

possible that it could receive either ten points (if it is very close to the lowest price) or one point (if it is very close to the highest price). Where

pricing cannot be determined (vendor does not supply price and public sources do not exist), a score of 0 is automatically assigned.

In Base5 scoring a number of sub-criteria are specified for each criterion (for example, Longevity, Market Presence, and Financials are sub-

criteria of the Viability criterion), and each one is scored on the following scale:

5 - The product/vendor is exemplary in this area (nothing could be done to improve the status).

4 - The product/vendor is good in this area (small changes could be made that would move things to the next level).

3 - The product/vendor is adequate in this area (small changes would make it good, more significant changes required to be exemplary).

2 - The product/vendor is poor in this area (this is a notable weakness and significant work is required).

1 - The product/vendor is terrible/fails in this area (this is a glaring oversight and a serious impediment to adoption).

The assigned points are summed and normalized to a value out of ten as explained in Cumulative Scoring above.

Scores out of ten, known as Raw scores, are transposed as-is into Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool, which automatically

determines Vendor Landscape positioning (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Vendor Landscape, below),

Criteria Score (see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Criteria Score, below), and Value Index (see Vendor

Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Value Index, below).


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Vendor Landscape

Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscape is a two-by-two matrix that plots solutions based on the

combination of Product score and Vendor score. Placement is not determined by

absolute score, but instead by relative score. Relative scores are used to ensure a

consistent view of information and to minimize dispersion in nascent markets, while

enhancing dispersion in commodity markets to allow for quick visual analysis by clients.

Relative scores are calculated as follows:

1. Raw scores are transposed into the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool

(for information on how Raw scores are determined, see Vendor Landscape

Methodology: Scoring, above).

2. Each individual criterion Raw score is multiplied by the pre-assigned weighting

factor for the Vendor Landscape in question. Weighting factors are determined

prior to the evaluation process to eliminate any possibility of bias. Weighting

factors are expressed as a percentage such that the sum of the weighting factors

for the Vendor criteria (Viability, Strategy, Reach, Channel) is 100% and the sum

of the Product criteria (Features, Usability, Affordability, Architecture) is 100%.

3. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the weighted Product

criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor score and an overall Product

score.

4. Overall Vendor scores are then normalized to a 20 point scale by calculating the

arithmetic mean and standard deviation of the pool of Vendor scores. Vendors for

whom their overall Vendor score is higher than the arithmetic mean will receive a

normalized Vendor score of 11-20 (exact value determined by how much higher

than the arithmetic mean their overall Vendor score is), while vendors for whom

their overall Vendor score is lower than the arithmetic mean will receive a

normalized Vendor score of between one and ten (exact value determined by how

much lower than the arithmetic mean their overall Vendor score is).

5. Overall Product score is normalized to a 20 point scale according to the same

process.

6. Normalized scores are plotted on the matrix, with Vendor score being used as the

x-axis, and Product score being used as the y-axis.

Vendor Landscape

Champions:

solutions with above

average Vendor

scores and above

average Product

scores.

Innovators:

solutions with below

average Vendor

scores and above

average Product

scores.

Market Pillars:

solutions with above

average Vendor

scores and below

average Product

scores.

Emerging Players:

solutions with below

average Vendor

scores and below

average Product

scores.


Harvey Balls

Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Criteria Scores (Harvey Balls)Info-Tech’s Criteria Scores are visual representations of the absolute score assigned to each individual criterion, as well as of the calculated

overall Vendor and Product scores. The visual representation used is Harvey Balls.

Harvey Balls are calculated as follows:

1. Raw scores are transposed into the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape Shortlist Tool (for information on how Raw scores are determined, see

Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring, above).

2. Each individual criterion Raw score is multiplied by a pre-assigned weighting factor for the Vendor Landscape in question. Weighting

factors are determined prior to the evaluation process, based on the expertise of the Senior or Lead Research Analyst, to eliminate any

possibility of bias. Weighting factors are expressed as a percentage, such that the sum of the weighting factors for the Vendor criteria

(Viability, Strategy, Reach, Channel) is 100%, and the sum of the Product criteria (Features, Usability, Affordability, Architecture) is

100%.

3. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the weighted Product criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor

score and an overall Product score.

4. Both overall Vendor score / overall Product score, as well as individual criterion Raw scores are converted from a scale of one to ten to

Harvey Ball scores on a scale of zero to four, where exceptional performance results in a score of four and poor performance results in a

score of zero.

5. Harvey Ball scores are converted to Harvey Balls as follows:

• A score of four becomes a full Harvey Ball.

• A score of three becomes a three-quarter full Harvey Ball.

• A score of two becomes a half full Harvey Ball.

• A score of one becomes a one-quarter full Harvey Ball.

• A score of zero (zero) becomes an empty Harvey Ball.

6. Harvey Balls are plotted by solution in a chart where rows represent individual solutions and columns represent overall Vendor / overall

Product, as well as individual criteria. Solutions are ordered in the chart alphabetically by vendor name.

Product Vendor


Overall Harvey

Balls represent

weighted

aggregates.

Criteria Harvey

Balls represent

individual Raw

scores.


Stop Lights

Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Feature Ranks (Stop Lights)

Info-Tech’s Feature Ranks are visual representations of the presence/availability of individual features that collectively comprise the Features’

criterion. The visual representation used is Stop Lights.

Stop Lights are determined as follows:

1. A single point is assigned to each evaluated feature that is regarded as being fully present, a half point to each feature that is partially

present or pending in an upcoming release, and zero points to features that are deemed to be fully absent.

• Fully present means all aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence.

• Fully absent means all aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence.

• Partially present means some, but not all, aspects and capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence, OR all aspects and

capabilities of the feature as described are in evidence, but only for some models in a line.

• Pending means all aspects and capabilities of the feature, as described, are anticipated to be in evidence in a future revision of the

product and that revision is to be released within the next 12 months.

2. Feature scores are converted to Stop Lights as follows:

• Full points become a Green light.

• Half points become a Yellow light.

• Zero points become a Red light.

3. Stop Lights are plotted by solution in a chart where rows represent individual solutions and columns represent individual features.

Solutions are ordered in the chart alphabetically by vendor name.

For example, a set of applications is being reviewed and a feature of “Integration with Mobile Devices” that is defined as “availability of

dedicated mobile device applications for iOS, Android, and BlackBerry devices” is specified. Solution A provides such apps for all listed

platforms and scores “Green”, solution B provides apps for iOS and Android only and scores “Yellow”, while solution C provides mobile device

functionality through browser extensions, has no dedicated apps, and so scores “Red”.

Feature 1 Feature 2 Feature 4 Feature 5Feature 3

Features

Feature 6 Feature 7 Feature 8

Yellow shows

partial availability

(such as in some

models in a line).

Green means a

feature is fully

present; Red,

fully absent.


Value Index

Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Value Index

Info-Tech’s Value Index is an indexed ranking of solution value per dollar as determined

by the Raw scores assigned to each criteria (for information on how Raw scores are

determined, see Vendor Landscape Methodology: Scoring, above).

Value scores are calculated as follows:

1. The Affordability criterion is removed from the overall Product score and the

remaining Product score criteria (Features, Usability, Architecture) are reweighted

so as to retain the same weightings relative to one another, while still summing to

100%. For example, if all four Product criteria were assigned base weightings of

25%, for the determination of the Value score, Features, Usability, and

Architecture would be reweighted to 33.3% each to retain the same relative

weightings while still summing to 100%.

2. A sum-product of the weighted Vendor criteria scores and of the reweighted

Product criteria scores is calculated to yield an overall Vendor score and a

reweighted overall Product score.

3. The overall Vendor score and the reweighted overall Product score are then

summed, and this sum is multiplied by the Affordability Raw score to yield an

interim Value score for each solution.

4. All interim Value scores are then indexed to the highest performing solution by

dividing each interim Value score by the highest interim Value score. This results

in a Value score of 100 for the top solution and an indexed Value score relative to

the 100 for each alternate solution.

5. Solutions are plotted according to Value score, with the highest score plotted first,

and all remaining scores plotted in descending numerical order.

Where pricing is not provided by the vendor and public sources of information cannot be

found, an Affordability Raw score of zero is assigned. Since multiplication by zero results

in a product of zero, those solutions for which pricing cannot be determined receive a

Value score of zero. Since Info-Tech assigns a score of zero where pricing is not

available, it is always in the vendor’s best interest to provide accurate and up to date

pricing

Those solutions that are ranked as

Champions are differentiated for point of

reference.

E

10

D

30

C

40

B

80

A

100Average Score: 52

Vendors are arranged in order of Value Score.

The Value Score each solution achieved is

displayed, and so is the average score.


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Price Evaluation

Info-Tech’s Price Evaluation is a tiered representation of the three year Total Cost of

Ownership (TCO) of a proposed solution. Info-Tech uses this method of communicating

pricing information to provide high-level budgetary guidance to its end-user clients while

respecting the privacy of the vendors with whom it works. The solution TCO is calculated

and then represented as belonging to one of ten pricing tiers.

Pricing tiers are as follows:

1. Between $1 and $2,500

2. Between $2,500 and $5,000

3. Between $5,000 and $10,000

4. Between $10,000 and $25,000

5. Between $25,000 and $50,000

6. Between $50,000 and $100,000

7. Between $100,000 and $250,000

8. Between $250,000 and $500,000

9. Between $500,000 and $1,000,000

10. Greater than $1,000,000

Where pricing is not provided, Info-Tech makes use of publicly available sources of

information to determine a price. As these sources are not official price lists, the

possibility exists that they may be inaccurate or outdated, and so the source of the

pricing information is provided. Since Info-Tech publishes pricing information regardless

of vendor participation, it is always in the vendor’s best interest to supply accurate and

up to date information.

Info-Tech’s Price Evaluations are based on pre-defined pricing scenarios (see Product

Pricing Scenario, below) to ensure a comparison that is as close as possible between

evaluated solutions. Pricing scenarios describe a sample business and solicit guidance

as to the appropriate product/service mix required to deliver the specified functionality,

the list price for those tools/services, as well as three full years of maintenance and

support.

Price Evaluation

Call-out bubble indicates within which price

tier the three year TCO for the solution falls,

provides the brackets of that price tier, and

links to the graphical representation.

Scale along the bottom indicates that the

graphic as a whole represents a price scale

with a range of $1 to $1M+, while the notation

indicates whether the pricing was supplied by

the vendor or derived from public sources.


tier 6, between $50,000 and $100,000.

$1 $1M+

Pricing solicited from public sources.


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Scenarios

Info-Tech’s Scenarios highlight specific use cases for the evaluated solution to provide as complete (when taken in conjunction with the

individual written review, Vendor Landscape, Criteria Scores, Feature Ranks, and Value Index) a basis for comparison by end-user clients as

possible.

Scenarios are designed to reflect tiered capability in a particular set of circumstances. Determination of the Scenarios in question is at the

discretion of the analyst team assigned to the research project. Where possible, Scenarios are designed to be mutually exclusive and

collectively exhaustive, or at the very least, hierarchical such that the tiers within the Scenario represent a progressively greater or broader

capability.

Scenario ranking is determined as follows:

1. The analyst team determines an appropriate use case.

For example:

• Clients that have multinational presence and require vendors to provide four hour onsite support.

2. The analyst team establishes the various tiers of capability.

For example:

• Presence in Americas

• Presence in EMEA

• Presence in APAC

3. The analyst team reviews all evaluated solutions and determines which ones meet which tiers of capability.

For example:

• Presence in Americas – Vendor A, Vendor C, Vendor E

• Presence in EMEA – Vendor A, Vendor B, Vendor C

• Presence in APAC – Vendor B, Vendor D, Vendor E

4. Solutions are plotted on a grid alphabetically by vendor by tier. Where one vendor is deemed to be stronger in a tier than other vendors in

the same tier, they may be plotted non-alphabetically.

For example:

• Vendor C is able to provide four hour onsite support to 12 countries in EMEA while Vendors A and B are only able to provide four hour

onsite support to eight countries in EMEA; Vendor C would be plotted first, followed by Vendor A, then Vendor B.


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Information Presentation – Vendor Awards

At the conclusion of all analyses, Info-Tech presents awards to exceptional solutions in

three distinct categories. Award presentation is discretionary; not all awards are

extended subsequent to each Vendor landscape and it is entirely possible, though

unlikely, that no awards may be presented.

Awards categories are as follows:

• Champion Awards are presented to those solutions, and only those solutions, that

land in the Champion zone of the Info-Tech Vendor Landscape (see Vendor

Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation - Vendor Landscape, above). If

no solutions land in the Champion zone, no Champion Awards are presented.

Similarly, if multiple solutions land in the Champion zone, multiple Champion Awards

are presented.

• Trend Setter Awards are presented to those solutions, and only those solutions,

that are deemed to include the most original/inventive product/service, or the most

original/inventive feature/capability of a product/service. If no solution is deemed to

be markedly or sufficiently original/inventive, either as a product/service on the

whole or by feature/capability specifically, no Trend Setter Award is presented. Only

one Trend Setter Award is available for each Vendor Landscape.

• Best Overall Value Awards are presented to those solutions, and only those

solutions, that are ranked highest on the Info-Tech Value Index (see Vendor

Landscape Methodology: Information Presentation – Value Index, above). If

insufficient pricing information is made available for the evaluated solutions, such

that a Value Index cannot be calculated, no Best Overall Value Award will be

presented. Only one Best Overall Value Award is available for each Vendor

Landscape.

Vendor Awards

Info-Tech’s Champion

Award is presented to

solutions in the Champion

zone of the Vendor

Landscape.

Info-Tech’s Trend Setter

Award is presented to the

most original/inventive

solution evaluated.

Info-Tech’s Best Overall

Value Award is

presented to the solution

with the highest Value

Index score.


Vendor Landscape Methodology:Fact Check & Publication

Info-Tech takes the factual accuracy of its Vendor Landscapes, and indeed of all of its published content, very seriously. To ensure the utmost

accuracy in its Vendor Landscapes, we invite all vendors of evaluated solutions (whether the vendor elected to provide a survey and/or

participate in a briefing or not) to participate in a process of Fact Check.

Once the research project is complete and the materials are deemed to be in a publication ready state, excerpts of the material specific to each

vendor’s solution are provided to the vendor. Info-Tech only provides material specific to the individual vendor’s solution for review

encompassing the following:

• All written review materials of the vendor and the vendor’s product that comprise the evaluated solution.

• Info-Tech’s Criteria Scores / Harvey Balls detailing the individual and overall Vendor / Product scores assigned.

• Info-Tech’s Feature Rank / Stop Lights detailing the individual feature scores of the evaluated product.

• Info-Tech’s Value Index ranking for the evaluated solution.

• Info-Tech’s Scenario ranking for all considered scenarios for the evaluated solution.

Info-Tech does not provide the following:

• Info-Tech’s Vendor Landscape placement of the evaluated solution.

• Info-Tech’s Value Score for the evaluated solution.

• End-user feedback gathered during the research project.

• Info-Tech’s overall recommendation in regard to the evaluated solution.

Info-Tech provides a one-week window for each vendor to provide written feedback. Feedback must be corroborated (be provided with

supporting evidence), and where it does, feedback that addresses factual errors or omissions is adopted fully, while feedback that addresses

opinions is taken under consideration. The assigned analyst team makes all appropriate edits and supplies an edited copy of the materials to

the vendor within one week for final review.

Should a vendor still have concerns or objections at that time, they are invited to a conversation, initially via email, but as required and deemed

appropriate by Info-Tech, subsequently via telephone, to ensure common understanding of the concerns. Where concerns relate to ongoing

factual errors or omissions they are corrected under the supervision of Info-Tech’s Vendor Relations personnel. Where concerns relate to

ongoing differences of opinion they are again taken under consideration with neither explicit not implicit indication of adoption.

Publication of materials is scheduled to occur within the six weeks immediately following the completion of the research project, but does not

occur until the Fact Check process has come to conclusion, and under no circumstances are “pre-publication” copies of any materials made

available to any client.


Product Pricing Scenario

• A mid-level clothing manufacturer/retailer with corporate offices on the US west coast, east coast, and Ireland and 2200 global employees is

looking to refresh its enterprise/campus LAN infrastructure. The firm is interested in only the wired LAN (no data center or wireless).

• The corporate office breakdown is as follows:

• US West Coast (Head Office)

• Employing 1600 people (70% of total staff), the west coast office holds Sales, Finance, Strategy, Marketing, Buyers, and the majority of IT.

The IT staff here consists of 45 employees, three of which are dedicated network professionals consisting of one Network Manager and two

Network Administrators.

• US East Coast (Satellite)

• Employing 200 people (10% of total staff), the east coast office holds solely a Marketing department.

• Ireland (Satellite)

• Employing 400 people (20% of total staff), the Ireland office employs Buyers and Manufacturing, and also a DR facility. Manufacturing

consists of 300 employees. The company’s remaining five IT staff are located here, though none have dedicated network responsibilities.

• The expected solution capabilities are as follows:

• The network will be two tiered (no distribution/aggregation layer) and requires the following:

• 50 layer 2/3 stackable 48 port Gigabit access/edge switches with 2x10 Gigabit uplink ports.

• Redundant core chassis switches for head office with line cards to accommodate up to 72x10 Gigabit and 192 Gigabit ports.

• Mini-core, non-redundant switches for satellite offices. Accommodate with either a small chassis switch or stackable switches. One for US

East coast should accommodate up to 10x10 Gigabit ports and 48 Gigabit ports. One for Ireland should accommodate up to 20x10 Gigabit

ports and 96 Gigabit ports.

• Please provide annual or three year 8x5 NBD advanced hardware replacement support and maintenance costs for the solution.

• Include the cost of a complete and comprehensive (not a limited free version) NMS to manage the infrastructure.

Info tech research group enterprise lan vendor landscape

Technology

Transcript of Info tech research group enterprise lan vendor landscape